Ideally, any scoring or evaluation system should be a validated one to enable it carry weight with regulators when they are assessing your work. However if there are no suitable validated scoring systems already in existence for what you are looking into, then you may be able to make a case for your scoring system. However some preliminary non-formal test for its specificity and or sensitivity for precision might still be required. Hope this helps...

Ideally, any scoring or evaluation system should be a validated one to enable it carry weight with regulators when they are assessing your work. However if there are no suitable validated scoring systems already in existence for what you are looking into, then you may be able to make a case for your scoring system. However some preliminary non-formal test for its specificity and or sensitivity for precision might still be required. Hope this helps...

yeah, it does, thanks 

I'd recommend purchasing a cheap hemocult testing kit.  It's cardboard cards with indicator dye and it allows you to visualize bloody stool that isn't grossly bloody.  This also helps to identify bleeding if you have recovering or newly sick animals that may not be grossly bleeding yet.

Hi Doaa, 

Our lab regularly uses DAI when using the DSS model and published on this a few years ago. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331082

In it, we make reference to how we evaluate DAI that includes bleeding (In this case, bleeding: 0 (no blood), 1 (Hemoccult positive), 2 (Hemoccult positive and visual pellet bleeding), and 4 (gross bleeding)). 

Hope this helps!

-Janice